Harry Reid Insults American Voters

By now, you have heard about Harry Reid's comments regarding Obama's electability as reported in the new book, Game Change. Reid said that Obama might be electable because he has "light skin" and does not have a "negro dialect."

Apologies to all the appropriate people were made, and the left has forgiven him, just like they've forgiven Chuck Rangel of being a tax cheat without any consequences. Obama gave Reid a pass and said that all the good Reid has done for the left outweighs his racist insult.

Of course, when you read in context was Reid was REALLY saying, you'll find that he was not insulting the African American community NEARLY as much as he was insulting us, the American Voter. Yes, I can see why African Americans would be upset about the phrase "negro dialect." In using these words, you might say that Reid "acted stupidly."

What I want to know is, where is MY apology from Reid? Reid essentially claimed that me and you and every other American voter would never vote for a dark-skinned african american because we are all racist rednecks. We don't listen to what candidates say or care about policies. All we care about is that they are "white enough" to be president.

And for that, I'm VERY insulted.

Reid is a complete moron, and he's proven it over and over. But never has he been so blatant in his stupidity than now, when insults all of us, and then apologies to the wrong people.

Trent Lott stepped down as Senate Majority leader for a remark that was much more innocent than this one. But since Reid is on the left, you can bet there will be no pressure to "drain the swamp" in Congress this time.

Seven African American Lawmakers Being Investigated

The House ethics committee is currently investigating seven African-American lawmakers — more than 15 percent of the total in the House. And an eighth black member, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.), would be under investigation if the Justice Department hadn’t asked the committee to stand down.

Not a single white lawmaker is currently the subject of a full-scale ethics committee probe.

The ethics committee declined to respond to questions about the racial disparity, and members of the Congressional Black Caucus are wary of talking about it on the record. But privately, some black members are outraged — and see in the numbers a worrisome trend in the actions of ethics watchdogs on and off Capitol Hill.

The situation reminds me of an acquaintance of mine who has a boyfriend of "mixed race." The two of them were stopped because a headlight on their car was out. When the policeman walked up to the car, he smelled the distinctive odor of weed. He asked to search the car and found .... more weed. This acquaintance complained that the whole incident occurred because he boyfriend was black . . . a fact that the policeman probably did not know when he stopped them, because it was at night. Never mind that they were driving with a headlight out in a car where the boyfriend had recently smoked pot.

If the Congressional Black Caucus or any other group wants to read racism into these ethics complaints, I'm sure they will. Of course, the fact that will be lost is that if they don't want to have the ethics investigations, they could always ..... you know .... OBEY THE RULES.

Scozzefava Suspends Campaign, Supports Democrat

Dede Scozzafava, the Republican and Independence Parties' candidate for the 23rd Congressional District of New York state who suspended her campaign Saturday, announced moments ago she was throwing her support behind Democrat candidate Bill Owens rather than the Conservative Party's Doug Hoffman.

This should make liberal media members ecstatic for the next 48 hours.

The Joe Wilson Saga Rolls On

There isn't anyone who watches politics who doesn't know who Joe Wilson is and what he did. And after his "outburst" he apologized to Obama, an apology that Obama accepted.

Wilson considered the matter closed. Obama considered the matter closed. Even Pelosi said the matter was closed.

Unfortunately for Wilson, in the world of politics, it just isn't that simple.

House democrats have insisted that Wilson apologize again. To them. Again.

And they are, of course, threatening a slap on the wrist over this "outrage" if he doesn't apologize again.

Why?

Politics, naturally.

It has to be about politics. If it was really about what is right and wrong, there would be a long line of people in front of Wilson waiting for their turn to apologize.

As Michael Steele put it:

"If we are going to march Members down to the well of the House to apologize, Joe Wilson is going to have to get in line behind Nancy Pelosi, who attacked the intelligence community who protects us, Charlie Rangel who cheated on his taxes, Jack Murtha - a walking scandal, and we all know how the Democratic leadership tried to protect William Jefferson. Democrats don't want an apology. They want a side show - something to shift focus away from their government-run experiment on health care."

How true.

Size Isn't Everything, but How Big Was It?

The big news from the weekend, of course, was the TEA Party / 9.12 project march on Washington over the weekend. It's interesting to watch the reaction from the Left-Wing Media complaining that this is a "fringe element of racists."

Denial isn't just a river in Africa, as the saying goes.

Hot Air points out that size isn't everything. A huge anti-war march was held in Washington in 2003 when 65% of Americans supported the War on Terror. Still, the crowd that showed up was bigger than expected. The New York Times reported "the magnitude of the rally took authorities by surprise, with throngs of people streaming from the White House to Capitol Hill for more than three hours."

Estimates vary.

... and "Vary" is an understatement. Some leftist blogs are reporting that 20,000 to 30,000 marched on Washington this past weekend. The city officials are reluctant to give out numbers, but the city fire department claims 75,000 people were in attendance. O'Reilly reported the 75,000 numbers as "fact" because the numbers were "unbiased." He feels that the unionized, mostly democratic, mostly black D.C. Fire Department employees would have no reason to intentionally under-report the numbers.

Other estimates have ranged from 1.75 million to 2.5 million.

I don't know. I've looked at the photos and video of the crowds. It looks like a LOT of people, but I have no idea whether the number is closer to 50,000 or closer to 2 million. Still, the numbers approach, if they don't exceed, the numbers for the million man march and the million mom march.

What's more important than the actual numbers is the demographics. While there were few hard-core leftists joining in on the protests, those protesting were not simply conservatives. There were a large number of independents, including people who voted for Obama in 2008. There were also a huge number of people who have never been politically active in their lives.

What this signals is a change in mood and attitude in America. Polls are showing that independents are increasingly opposing Obama and the Democratic party, not just on the health care issue, but on other big government spending programs.

This does not bode well for Democrats in the coming elections.

I recall hearing a couple of Democratic pundits, including James Carville, who said immediately following the November election of Obama, that the Democrats and leftists would be in power for at least the next 20 years.

Twenty years sure have flown by.

Had Obama governed in the center, pushing a few leftists policies here and there, and tried to keep his poll numbers up, they may have been right. As it is, the left is seeing 2009 and 2010 as their "big opportunity." They intend to push every leftist bill, policy and ideal through this year and next. In doing so, they are increasingly alienating not just those who consider themselves fiscally conservative, but also libertarians, independents, and even moderate democrats.

The administration is denying what's going on, of course. They want to insist that the TEA party crowd is a fringe element. They want to push their agenda. I hope they continue to convince themselves that they have the support of America behind them. The continued push to the left is what is going to hand Congress back to the right in 2010 and the White House in 2012.

It's Early, But . . .

Every year, Time magazine names its "Man of the Year," which isn't always a man, by the way. The "Man of the Year" has been a computer at least once, and a "Woman of the year" more than once, I believe.

Even though its way too early to even speculate, I doubt I'll wind up on the short list. Even though I won't be there, I'll make one prediction and one suggestion.

My prediction is obvious. Obama will be Time's "Man of the Year." There is no question that the liberal leaning magazine will make the most liberal president of all time the focus of their annual love-fest.

Now for my suggestion: The "Man of the Year" should be the nation's Anti-Government-Run Socialized Health Care demonstrators.

Obama seems to have abused and squandered the political capital he rode into Washington with, and as much as anything, that may have help to sabotage his socialized medicine scheme.

Of all the newsworthy stories of the year so far, none has been more surprising than the robust democratic process that the health care debate has reinvigorated in the people of this nation.

While Democrats are still trying to insist that the nationwide grass-roots movement against Obama's Draconian schemes is contrived and illusory, it is just the opposite. Nothing could be so real as the American people, emboldened by their passion for liberty, standing up against a callous, dishonest government trolling for its freedoms in exchange for false promises.

All the proof we need that Obama and the Democrats in Congress recognize the authenticity of this grass-roots protest is their hysterical reaction to it. They wouldn't be hyperventilating about if if they believed it to be fake, but they would use their supermajorities to ram through this bill.

Indeed, that congressmen have not been able or "courageous" enough (against the threat of being removed from office in 2010) to pass a bill that they have been salivating over for 30 years is the story of the year. Integral to that story is the unraveling of the Obama mystique, occasioned by Obama's ongoing arrogance and duplicity.

Move over Obama. Move over Michael Jackson. Time may not recognize it, but the "Man of the Year" is Joe Conservative.

Support for ObamaCare Drops; Deadline Moved

In his most recent remarks, Obama has stopped mentioning what had been his mantra - that congress pass a health care reform bill by the August recess. Instead, he is now issuing a less specific call to action.

The increased flexibility follows resistance by key senators in both parties to what they have called an "artificial deadline." The White House denies this. An unnamed aid said the president isn't letting up. "No change in the timeline," said the aide. Obama's insistence on an August deadline is likely for two reasons: (1) to take advantage of concerns over the "economic crisis" and to use his political capital in dealing with that crisis, and (2) to not give anyone, senators, representatives, the press and political "enemies", time to read the details in the bill.

But prodding in Congress in speeches on his top legislative priorities on Friday and Saturday omitted the August deadline. Friday, Obama said only that promised health care reform would "happen this year." He ignored a reporter's question about pushing back his goal of having a bill before the recess.

Concerns have risen on Capitol Hill on how to pay for Obamacare. The long term impact of the proposal has been leaking out and resonating with voters. One poll has support for Obama's version of health care reform falling below 50% for the first time since before the election last November.

While this does not bode well for Obama, Biden and other leftists committed to taking over as much of the free market economy as they can, it does bode well for American taxpayers and business owners, not to mention folks now standing in unemployment lines.

It's Even Worse When It's the Majority Leader

It is not a very good thing when a Congressman laughs at the notion that Congressmen should read the text of a bill before voting on it.

CNSNews.com's Monica Gabriel and Marie Magleby report today that Majority Leader Steny Hoyer actually laughed when asked by CNSNews.com if Members of Congress should read a government health care "reform" bill before voting on it.

"If every member pledged to not vote for it if they hadn't read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes," Hoyer told CNSNews.com.

If the bill is so unimportant it's not worth the trouble to read (by people who are paid well to read it, no less!), maybe we should just do without.

More Health Care Myths

In a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, George Newman attacks many of the myths that the leftists are using to socialize our health care system. Here are a couple of his arguments:

- "The American people overwhelmingly favor reform."

If you ask whether people would be happier if somebody else paid their medical bills, they generally say yes. But surveys on consumers' satisfaction with their quality of care show overwhelming support of the continuation of the present arrangement. The best proof of this is the belated recognition by the proponents of health care reform that they need to promise people that they can keep what they have now.

- "The cost of health care rises two to three times as fast as inflation."

That's like comparing the price of a McDonald's hamburger 30 years ago with the price of a filet mignon today and calling the difference inflation. Or the price of a 19-inch, black-and-white TV 30 years ago with the price of a 50-inch HDTV today. The improvements in medical care are even more dramatic, leading to longer life, less pain, fewer exploratory surgeries and miracle drugs. Of course the research, the equipment and the training that produce these improvements don't come cheap.

The current administration and Congress want to "fix" these problems. In all likelihood, that is going to mean that you won't have a system with the quality of care that we have today, and in all likelihood we will not see innovation in life-saving technologies and medications in the future like we have in the past.

Is this really what Americans want? I suspect not.